Terms and Conditions of Employment

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I, too, refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

When I saw the Order Paper and an item titled “Terms and Conditions of Employment”, I thought that it was good news—after the 20 times the Government have committed to an employment Bill, perhaps we would actually see it. I thought that nearly seven years on from the Taylor review, of which almost 50 recommendations have not been enacted or brought before the House, we would have an opportunity to create dignity, fairness and an inclusive labour market, leading to a fairer and more equal nation. But what we have today is a snail step, albeit one that I will welcome, with some qualifications.

The reality is that for thousands of workers across these islands, terms and conditions of employment see too many working people become victims at the mercy of bosses looking to cut costs, which is exactly what fire and rehire is about. It is also about zero-hour contracts, bogus self-employment and short notice of shift changes, leaving workers with additional transport and childcare costs, but I want to concentrate on the evil practice of fire and rehire.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), who has had to go to a Committee, has tabled two private Member’s Bills that seek to outlaw fire and rehire practices. The Bills are supported by over 100 MPs and the trade unions Unite, the British Airline Pilots’ Association and GMB. I listened carefully to the Minister’s exchanges with my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), and my scepticism about the order being approved today relates to what would happen in a tribunal case for unfair dismissal where a re-engagement order is placed on an employer following a dismissal, and the tribunal orders a reinstatement. We all know that very few cases in which a tribunal tells an employer to reinstate a worker who has been dismissed leads to a reinstatement, because employers will absorb the additional costs for failing to reinstate. I welcome the fact that there will be a penalty where fire and rehire has taken place, but the same principles are at play here.

I am afraid my scepticism relates to the fact that, as those on the Labour Front Bench have said, this order will not end the practice of fire and rehire. Large employers will get their calculators out and absorb the costs, like we have seen with British Airways and P&O. I saw the Business and Trade Committee’s extraordinary exchanges with P&O’s chief executive last week. I want to see real sanctions, so I ask the Minister to write to us and tell us how many tribunal cases where there has been an order to reinstate have actually led to a reinstatement. I understand that the rate could be as low as 3%, but I would be curious to know the figures, because I suspect that they could tell us what would happen with fire-and-rehire practices.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I agree with my hon. Friend, but will not companies such as British Airways, P&O and Asda, which have indulged in this behaviour, look at this as a balance sheet exercise and conclude that the penalty is so small that they can ride it out? Does that not make the case for the Government bringing forward an employment Bill to deal with the issue?

[Chris Stephens]

I agree that there should be an employment Bill but, exactly as my hon. Friend has outlined, our concern would be that large employers will get the calculator out and decide to absorb the cost. They will then, as they see it, take a smaller financial hit from paying a penalty than they would for fire and rehire. It is an evil practice, and I hope the Government will now consider ending fire and rehire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Why wait? Let us have the debate now.

The shadow Minister mentioned P&O, as did many other hon. and right hon. Members. Clearly, that was not a situation involving fire and rehire. There is an ongoing investigation, and we believe that P&O broke the law. Following that situation, we introduced the Seafarers Wages Act 2023 to ensure that any company that operates vessels in British waters will pay the national living wage, which will be an effective measure.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) described fire and rehire as an “evil practice”, which is not the right kind of language. There are situations where sometimes employers do the wrong thing by their employees, but most employers do the right thing. There are businesses that have no alternative other than fire and rehire in order to save the business and save jobs. To describe every situation involving dismissal and re-engagement as an “evil practice” is entirely the wrong kind of language.

[Chris Stephens]

The Minister is being typically generous in giving way. Surely dismissing people and re-engaging them on worse terms and conditions, and in many cases on lower wages—many multinational companies try to get away with that, and some did get away with it during the pandemic—is an evil practice.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

There are cases where these opportunities are abused—I do not deny that—but the hon. Gentleman is operating on the basis that it is the exception rather than the rule. It is our view, which he may disagree with, that the vast majority of employers do not treat their employees that way. There have been cases where a court has upheld the right of an employer to fire and rehire. Where the employer tries to restructure the company to save jobs, through a salary reduction of a few per cent. for everyone in the workplace, that is better than the business going down. The hon. Gentleman must see that there are some situations in which it is the only option for an employer, which operates in the interests of the wider workforce. It was the right thing to do in those situations. His describing it as an “evil practice” is wrong and misses the point, although there are abuses of the system, as he describes.

Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill (Instructions)

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Marion Fellows]

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for making that point. The body responsible for bringing miscarriages of justice before the court of appeal in Scotland is the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which is not under the spell of the Lord Advocate. That argument is spurious to say the least.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Is she aware of the evidence given by Professor James Chalmers of the University of Glasgow to the Justice Committee a couple of weeks ago? He was asked this very question, and he said that in his view, it was better that the legislation goes through this place with legislative consent motions in the Scottish Parliament, because it is tied directly to the UK compensation scheme for this area.

[Marion Fellows]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Yes, I am very aware that the regius professor of law at the University of Glasgow made that very point to the Justice Committee. There has been widespread disquiet; I think the Chair of that Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), would agree that no one in the legal profession really wants this Bill. It is breaking all precedent, but for a really good reason.

Postmasters have suffered. Robert Thomson, the postmaster who was going to be sitting in the Gallery, was convicted in 2006 while his mother was still alive. He is the man who had to talk to his sons and tell them, “I might not be here tomorrow.” He did not go to prison, but he could not get a job that gave him the income that he had when he was a postmaster. He has been in penury, his life has been turned upside down, and his children have suffered enormously. That is the case for so many sub-postmasters across the United Kingdom: they did nothing wrong, yet people were pointing at them in the street and whispering. Another sub-postmaster who was going to be in the Gallery watching us all today had to move back to his hometown because, five years later, he heard people in the supermarket saying, “There’s the guy who stole from the Post Office.” This kind of thing never leaves those victims—they will carry it to their dying day. Robert Thomson’s mother died before her son spent two years going through the Scottish courts to be exonerated.

Every time I have been in this place when any legal issue comes up, I am told that this Parliament is sovereign. Well, prove it: put the provisions of this Bill into Scotland-wide use as well. [Interruption.] Members can stand at the back, smile and snigger, but I mean it—it is absolutely disgraceful that you are saying to Scottish sub-postmasters who were convicted that they cannot get justice at the same time as their English, Welsh and Northern Irish counterparts. This is a Westminster problem. Westminster must and should sort it out, and it is easily done. Ask for a legislative consent motion, and you will get it. The Scottish Parliament will put a Bill through to exonerate these postmasters, but it cannot do it—it cannot mirror exactly what is done in this place—until this Bill has gone through all of its stages.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. and learned Member for her point, and I heard the points she raised earlier. It is very clear that all that is required for someone to access the compensation is the overturning of a conviction, and that can be done by means chosen by the Scottish Parliament or the means that have been chosen by the UK Parliament. There will be identical access to the compensation schemes: it makes no difference by whatever mechanism those convictions are overturned.

As I said earlier, the Lord Advocate has said very clearly that

“It is important to recognise that in Scotland, there is an established route of appeal in circumstances such as this…and that due process must be followed.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 16 January 2024; c. 14.]

She is of course entitled to that view. These are difficult political choices, which we have taken in defining the cohort criteria, and it is right that responsible Ministers remain accountable for those decisions. The buck stops here, and it must also stop with the Scottish Government.

[Chris Stephens]

I am confused at the inconsistency here, so perhaps the Minister could help us. The Government are putting through a Criminal Justice Bill that impacts on Scotland, which has required the Scottish Parliament to pass a legislative consent motion for that Bill. So if it is good enough for the Criminal Justice Bill going through this place, why is it not good enough for this Bill to go through this place?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As I said earlier, Scottish Ministers have the responsibility and the means to be able to form this legislation. We think it is important that they take responsibility for their decisions in this area, given the nature of these issues.

Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill

Chris Stephens Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 20th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that. The work of the advisory board on all this has been invaluable and is very much appreciated. We can all accept that a number of cases may seek compensation payments well in excess of £600,000 because of the scale of the loss and the complexity. No one would want or seek to do anything to prevent those cases from concluding in the way that is necessary. I simply ask the Minister to reflect on how the Government can give assurances on the best way to do that.

I come back to the issue raised by colleagues from Northern Ireland about the territorial extent of the Bill’s provisions and the desire to overturn the convictions of the small but significant number of affected sub-postmasters in Northern Ireland, who would otherwise fall beyond the scope of the legislation. I can tell colleagues that the Labour party supports the calls made. I understand that this would be a complex constitutional undertaking, but given that every party in Northern Ireland and, I believe, every Minister in the new Assembly are calling for inclusion in the Bill, we must recognise that.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Because this is an unusual case, the Scottish Government have specifically asked that the Bill also take in Scotland. I understand that the Labour party supports that position too, but we have not really heard any rational reason why Scotland and Northern Ireland are excluded from the Bill.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman will not mind my teasing him about a call for Unionism from the Scottish National party. [Interruption.] Just on this issue! As I understand it, the issue is that the Scottish judiciary does not support inclusion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

Absolutely; that is a really good case in point. I hope my right hon. Friend will be in the next Parliament to help drive this through. I have said I am stepping down, so I will not see Sir Wyn Williams’s final report—not from these Benches, anyway. I hope the House takes it to heart and drives through the lessons learned.

I recommend a book by Matthew Syed, called “Black Box Thinking”. He compares accidents in the NHS with accidents and near accidents in the airline industry. With aircraft, even just a near miss gets learned from not only by the airline in question; it has to be passed on to every airline in the world. There is a collective sense of learning in the industry.

[Chris Stephens]

I have enjoyed the hon. Gentleman’s considered speech so far. When he was a Minister, did he have a potential solution for what my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) mentioned: the Asda employees in Scotland who have been caught up in this scandal?

[Paul Scully]

I did not, but the issue is worth looking at. This is a human scandal, and it is not just about the postmasters who were directly affected. I am not sure how we start to unpick that as it gets wider and wider, but I hope and trust that the Government will reflect on it as we do the wider learning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

I think that is right. Some people may, of course, turn that argument around and say, “It’s only a small number of cases, so why should we be concerned?” But although the number may be small, since this issue has become so public there is public outrage on behalf of those who have been unfairly treated. Many people who have spoken to me about this have not been affected personally by the Horizon scandal, but there is a sense of injustice that some people were affected in such a way—they lost their reputation, their money, their business, in some cases their families, and their peace of mind—and there is a need not to delay any longer if at all possible. One way of ensuring that there is no such delay is to include Northern Ireland in the Bill.

When the Secretary of State was asked about this issue she said that she wanted to avoid unintentional consequences. Those unintentional consequences were unspecified because we did not get any examples, but I do not see how there could be unintentional consequences from including Northern Ireland in the Bill. It is a tight piece of legislation. It specifies who is covered by it, what offences are covered, and the way that the exoneration would be implemented by having records removed and so on. I cannot see where the unintended consequences would be, and I find that argument fairly weak.

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Gentleman has described the logistical problems. Does he agree that if the territorial provisions were extended to Scotland and Northern Ireland, all that would be required are legislative consent motions from the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, which would be a cleaner and more efficient way of dealing with this issue for people in Northern Ireland and Scotland?

[Sammy Wilson]

I am not even sure that in Northern Ireland a legislative consent motion would be required, simply because the Executive has already indicated that they would be happy for Northern Ireland to be included. I do not see how this would tramp on any political sensitivities, and it cannot have unintended consequences.

Another argument has been, “But look, you’re going to upset the judiciary.” In my view it doesn’t matter whether the judiciary are upset by a decision made in this House or in the Assembly. If they are going to be upset, they are going to be upset. I suspect they will not be, however, because I am sure that many of the judges recognise that in the light of evidence that has now become available, the decisions made have to be looked at again anyway. I do not think there is an argument there.

Another argument that was made, I think by an Opposition Member, is that politicians in devolved Administrations should take the risk and take responsibility for the job they are required to do. I do not mind politicians taking responsibility for things they have been responsible for, but this was not an issue that politicians in Northern Ireland, or indeed Scotland, were responsible for. The Post Office was not a devolved issue; it was reserved. The prosecutions were initiated by actions taken by the Post Office. To say, “You’ve got to man up and take responsibility”—I am not so sure that that argument stands when this is a national issue. The Post Office is organised on a national basis, and the compensation will be organised on a national basis. Therefore, to me there is no responsibility there for the devolved Administrations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). He says that he is proud as a Unionist to see this decision being taken here, but I say to him gently: be wary of Scottish nationalists bearing gifts of UK accountability, because essentially that is where we have come to today. I will pick up the point about territorial jurisdiction later, but I first want to say a word or two of more general application.

A lot of people in this debate have spoken about this legislation being unprecedented and about the concerns of some in the legal profession and the judiciary and the discomfort they feel. Those feelings of discomfort are entirely appropriate and legitimate, and I would be more concerned if they were not there. However, it is because of the wholly exceptional nature of the situation facing those prosecuted as a consequence of the deception of the Post Office and Fujitsu and the misuse of the Horizon software that we should have a Bill of this sort. I, along with my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches, have no difficulty in supporting the Bill.

I should declare an interest as a recovering solicitor: it is 22-and-a-half years since I surrendered my practising certificate, no doubt to the relief of many. To my former colleagues I would say that it is worth asking why we have courts in the first place. Essentially, we have courts because it is important that there are bodies able to give the general public confidence that the various vehicles of the state work properly and that people can get justice. Do they get it right all the time? No, of course they do not. When I was a solicitor, we often used to say, “Justice has to be seen to be done, and it often has to be seen to be believed.”

Let us not forget that the judiciary are like the rest of us; if they are cut, they bleed. They are vulnerable to the same human foibles as us. They ultimately have to be accountable for people at moments like this. Those who have said that the judiciary need to take a look at themselves are right to say that. I take mild exception to the suggestion that somehow or another the doctrine of the separation of powers builds an impenetrable wall between the different legs of the constitution. It does not.

This House created the very institution of the Supreme Court barely 20 years ago. We interfere all the time in the running of the courts by setting their budgets and telling them what rules of procedure and evidence they can follow, and nobody takes exception to that. What we are dealing with here is an interference of a different order altogether, but it is one that conforms to the principle that there are occasions when this House, as a sovereign Parliament, has to act and intervene. I think the nature and scale of the injustices that have been visited on people here absolutely justify that.

The question about territorial jurisdiction is an important one. I listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), who, incidentally, I rate very highly—at the risk of killing her political career stone dead by praise. I have enormous respect for how she has managed the all-party parliamentary group on post offices and the very measured and effective way she has prosecuted the case for postmasters, sub-postmasters and Post Office employees. That applies not just in relation to the Horizon scandal, but in the day-to-day operation of the Post Office itself.

It pains me to find myself in a different place from the hon. Lady. I said to her last night that I am still open to be persuaded, but my starting point has to be that we judge the issue by the outcomes for the postmasters themselves. Essentially, can we get those affected in Scotland to the same place by allowing the Scottish Parliament to do its job, constitutionally as it is charged to do, or, in order to get everybody in the same place at the same time, do we have to do it here?

[Chris Stephens]

To kill the right hon. Gentleman’s political career, I should say that I have the same respect as he has for my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows). As he said, this debate is about how we can best get justice to the victims. Can I offer as a solution something that is happening now? The Criminal Justice Bill, which has not reached all stages of the parliamentary process, already has a legislative consent motion from the Scottish Parliament for the areas of the Bill that impact Scotland. Perhaps that is a way of getting around the territorial debate. If Scotland and Northern Ireland were put there, it would allow legislative consent both in Northern Ireland and Scotland to happen concurrently, at the same time as the legislation is passing here.

[Mr Carmichael]

That is one way in which the procedure could be done. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw that the question of quashing convictions is just one element of justice. The other important element is that those who were responsible for initiating the prosecutions must be accountable. That accountability would be missing if the provisions for Scotland were put in this Bill or the Criminal Justice Bill. That accountability is important for the quality of justice, if it is achievable within the timescale; we are balancing competing demands.

The position of Northern Ireland is qualitatively different because there is a statutory requirement for a 12-week consultation. The Scottish Parliament does not have that requirement, so it would be able to proceed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

They are set by the Parliamentary Bureau, of which the majority of members come from the SNP and the Greens. I have kept this fairly broad in its terms. Can I just say gently to the hon. Lady that if the Scottish Government, instead of trying to evade political accountability, would take their responsibilities seriously and get on with it, they would get on with the drafting of the necessary legislation? If they want to wait and see how it all works here, to see if there are further amendments, then of course they can do so. They should be mindful of the fact that, apart from this one point, on the substantive provisions in the Bill there is complete unanimity across all parties in the House. So I would not see this as a Bill that is likely to attract amendment on the substance.

If the hon. Lady wishes to introduce her amendments relating to jurisdiction at a later stage, then that is another matter altogether. If we consider the consequences for the substance of the Bill, we would effectively be writing a whole new part of it. For example, if we have regard to the offences for which compensation is to be paid, very few are terms of art in Scots law, so we would be writing a new Bill to be inserted here.

Why are the Scottish Government so resistant to getting on and doing what they are constitutionally charged to do, when they could do it if they started now, in a timescale that brings everybody to the same place? The hon. Lady herself said that compensation had to be done equitably and fairly. I put it to her and to her colleagues that the consequence of their route being followed would be Scottish victims having justice of a lesser quality, because the decisions about prosecution are accountable to this House in England, and there would be no such accountability for decisions on prosecution if they were to be taken in the Scottish Parliament.

[Chris Stephens]

Not true.

[Mr Carmichael]

Can the hon. Gentleman sitting to my left explain to me why he thinks that is not true?

[Chris Stephens]

I will—and I am always to his left, as he knows. If the Parliament discusses legislative consent, that is where the accountability takes place. I say to the right hon. Gentleman again—he does not need to answer it today, because the Bill will go through other stages and the Minister said he is considering it—that I hope he will consider the Criminal Justice Bill example and legislative consent as a solution to the issue.

[Mr Carmichael]

It is a solution to the issue inasmuch as it is another means of doing the same thing that the hon. Gentleman’s party wants to do in respect of the Bill, but it is not a solution inasmuch as it allows that level of accountability, and it is the accountability that matters.

The current Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain, has already said, on the record, that

“not every case involving Horizon evidence will be a miscarriage of justice and each case must be considered carefully and with regard to the law. It is also important to recognise”

—as others have said here—

“the important…constitutional role of our Appeal Court in Scotland and that due process must be followed.”

That is a qualitatively different approach from the one that is at the heart of the Bill. The Lord Advocate may be right, but that is where she has to explain herself; and she also has to explain the decisions that were taken by her predecessors. It is 30 years ago now, but I did start my legal career, meagre and modest though it may have been, at the Crown Office in Edinburgh. Elish Angiolini, whom we were fêting here a week or two ago for her report on the workings of the Metropolitan police, was my first boss when I was a trainee solicitor there. My second boss was Frank Mulholland—now Lord Mulholland —the second Lord Advocate who would have had responsibility for some of these cases. All of them will have to be accountable in their own way.

The current Lord Advocate will of course be accountable, and it is obvious from the statement she gave to the Scottish Parliament that her work is already fairly well advanced. She has confirmed that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission wrote to 73 potential victims of the Horizon scandal in 2020. She has also confirmed that the Crown Office has identified another 54 cases that are being reviewed by prosecutors, and that many of those cases have been contacted by the SCCRC as well. As of March 2024, 19 people have come forward to have their cases reviewed. Eight of them have been referred to court, with six having their cases cleared. The remaining two cases are still pending an outcome.

Given the amount of work that has been done and given the nature of what the Lord Advocate has said on the record, it makes, to my mind, absolutely no sense for the Scottish elements of this one narrow part—on the decisions to prosecute—to be taken differently. It comes down to accountability, and if we have learned nothing else throughout this whole sorry episode of the Horizon system and Post Office Ltd, surely we have learned that, at the end of the day, accountability makes a difference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I understand the hon. Member’s point. I can tell him from this Dispatch Box that it is something on which we will continue to have dialogue. I have talked to his colleagues today and yesterday. In fact, I met the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Justice Minister yesterday to discuss these matters. They raised some interesting points that we need to take into account. I am very happy to keep those conversations ongoing, so I will happily have a further conversation with him after this debate.

[Chris Stephens]

The Minister is showing his customary politeness and kindness. He has outlined the discussions with Northern Ireland. The main issue is how we get a solution that satisfies everyone across these islands, so will he also have those discussions with the Scottish Government, particularly around the territorial issue, and will he say something about Asda employees in Scotland who are also caught up in this?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I absolutely give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We want everything to happen simultaneously. Our ambition is to get the legislation passed by July. If people choose the fixed sum award route, we can pay compensation rapidly. They have two choices of route to take. The £600,000 can be delivered very quickly—literally within weeks of passing the legislation. We want to pass the legislation by July; we could be paying compensation as quickly as by August. Exactly the same thing can happen in Scotland if the Scottish Government effect the legislation at the same pace. My officials are working with officials of the SNP-led Government in Scotland on a weekly basis to try to ensure that that is the case. I have met with my counterpart in the Scottish Government to talk about this issue.

I did not quite get the hon. Gentleman’s point about employees. He might want to intervene on me again, so I can address it properly.

[Chris Stephens]

A number of Members have mentioned, as I have, the particular issue of Asda employees in Scotland. Has the Minister thought about that?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Employees generally are an issue, because they do not have a contractual relationship with the Post Office, which is required to enter the compensation scheme, but if the company itself did have one it could make a compensation claim that could then be passed on to that individual. I am very happy to discuss individual cases with the hon. Gentleman, or with other Members.

I pay tribute again to all the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam. I agree that this was a case of human failure as well as technological failure, and that the wheels of justice are moving too slowly. That is why we have stepped in in this way. I am always grateful for the work of the right hon. Member for North Durham, not least on the Horizon compensation advisory board. He has made some important recommendations, which we have adopted. He gave a four-legged analogy about the person I am: he called me more shire horse than show pony, which I take as a compliment. I would describe him in a four-legged way as well: he is a cross between a terrier and a rottweiler, and he is highly effective in the way he approaches this issue.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about convictions relating to pilot versions of Horizon. That is why we have set the date at 23 December 1996. That is the first point of the roll-out of an application called Pathway, which was a predecessor Horizon application. We think that the legislation, and therefore the redress schemes, capture—if I can use that word—cases that relate to the pilot schemes in clause 8.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we look at the Capture system slightly differently. Capture is a stand-alone spreadsheet rather than a network computer system. There is no remote access, for example. The key thing is that what we are doing here is exceptional and unprecedented. We have the body of evidence because it has been before a court. Part of the reason the court made its decision in 2019 was based on the Horizon issues, as it put it. We do not have that body of evidence with Capture. We are keen to talk to him to ensure that we look at the evidence. That conversation will continue.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the power to make consequential provision. We do not see that as giving us the ability to include another group of people; there are different reasons why that power is in the Bill. It is for matters that are a consequence of the Bill, which we do not think is the right vehicle to include people, for example, who have been affected by the Capture system. As I say, we will continue to discuss that.

As I said earlier, we understand the arguments about Northern Ireland, and we will continue to engage, as we will with other Members of this House. In terms of reasonable steps, the process is in development. It is about marking the records and writing to individuals. When we have passed the legislation, we will write literally that day, or the next day, to those individuals to say, “You’re conviction has been quashed,” and we will give them details about how to claim compensation.

Draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2024 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hosie. The purpose of these regulations is to raise the national living wage and national minimum wage rates on 1 April 2024. They were laid on 13 January and approved by the House of Lords on 12 March.

We are delighted to say that this uplift will see the achievement of one of our core pledges: for the national living wage to reach two thirds of median earnings by 2024. The target was set with the intention of ending low hourly pay, in line with the OECD definition, for those eligible. Now, on the 25th anniversary of the minimum wage, that target will be met—a genuinely historic moment.

We have achieved that on time, in spite of the difficult global conditions of the past few years—the huge economic impact of the pandemic, the shockwaves of the war in Ukraine and recent cost of living challenges. That is something that the Government, and every parliamentarian, should be proud of. Indeed, we should also be very proud of the contribution from businesses, who have obviously borne the greatest burden of paying it.

I will turn shortly to the detail of the regulations, but I will first thank the Low Pay Commission. We have once again accepted all of its recommendations for the national living wage and national minimum wage rates. Its diligent approach to conducting detailed analysis and carrying out a range of stakeholder engagement has continued to pay dividends, enabling the Government to strike the right balance in giving millions of workers a well-earned pay rise, without harming businesses—the lifeblood of our economy—or adversely impacting the balance of the UK’s labour market. I extend my thanks to all of the commissioners, including Bryan Sanderson, whose term as chair ended around the turn of the year. I look forward to continuing to work closely with the Low Pay Commission, including the newly appointed chair, Baroness Stroud.

Turning to the rates themselves, once these regulations have secured parliamentary passage, the national living wage will increase on 1 April to £11.44 an hour—a record 9.8% cash increase of £1.02. As well as hitting our goal of seeing the national living wage reach two thirds of median earnings, we are also delivering on our pledge to extend eligibility from workers aged 23 and over to those aged 21 and over. By including 21 and 22-year-olds in the national living wage, these regulations will put more money into the pockets of more workers.

Given that younger workers remain more susceptible to economic shocks, the national minimum wage rates for those under 21 years old will remain in place. However, in making its recommendations, the LPC noted that employment among workers aged between 16 and 20 has been strong in recent months, and that the previous large increases to the national living wage have widened the gap to those younger workers entitled to the national minimum wage at lower rates. We are therefore pleased to deliver a significant uplift to the other national minimum wage rates.

These regulations will increase the rate for 18 to 20-year-olds to £8.60 an hour—a rise of 14.8%, or £1.11. The minimum wage for workers above school leaving age, but under 18 years old, will increase to £6.40 an hour—up by £1.12, or 21.2%. The same applies to the apprentice national minimum wage rate, which applies to apprentices aged 19 and under or in the first year of their apprenticeship. The accommodation offset, meanwhile, which is a daily rate, will increase by 9.8%, or 89p, to £9.99.

The Government published a comprehensive impact assessment when these regulations were laid, including an equalities assessment. Hon. Members will note that this impact assessment has once again received a green, fit-for-purpose rating from the Regulatory Policy Committee. I also note that the net cost to business is £217 million per annum.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for showing his customary politeness in giving way. In the impact assessment, I do not see any reference to UK Government employees. Does the Minister know how many UK Government employees will benefit from the provisions he is laying out today?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do not know that figure, but the hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. He is not just talking about the overall number of Government employees—I do not know that number either—but the ones that are on national living wage. I am very happy to look at that, and I will be interested to hear his reflections later. Perhaps he will enlighten us on what he believes that number to be.

We estimate that three million workers will receive a direct pay rise as a result of this uprating. The increase to the national living wage will represent a boost of more than £1,800 to the gross annual earnings of every full-time worker on the national living wage compared with this year, and a boost of £8,600 compared with 2015, when the policy was first announced. To put that in context, when this year’s uprating comes into effect in April, the national living wage will be approximately 70% higher than in 2015. Meanwhile, the consumer price index has increased about 30%, so it has increased at over twice the rate of inflation.

Finally, I remind hon. and right hon. Members of one further important change we have introduced to the minimum wage regulations. The Low Pay Commission recommended that minimum wage exemption for live-in domestic workers, which the Employment Appeal Tribunal had found amounted to indirect discrimination against women, should be removed. Due to legislation we passed earlier this year, it will be removed from the statute book from 1 April, protecting more of the UK’s vulnerable workers from exploitation.

We recognise that businesses and workers alike remain keen to hear about the future of the minimum wage. I can therefore confirm that we will be publishing the 2024 remit to the LPC shortly. The remit will ask it to provide recommendations for the national living wage and national minimum wage rates to apply from April 2025. The Government and the LPC will continue to monitor closely the impacts of these increases on the economy, and carefully consider our future ambitions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hosie. I direct the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I will be raising some issues pertinent to it.

I have been present at every Delegated Legislation Committee since 2015 that has discussed the national minimum wage and its rates. Year after year, those of us who have argued about age discrimination have been mocked, traduced and told that we were talking nonsense. We were told that those aged 25 or over had higher bills than those aged 21. I made the point then that that was a nonsensical position, but was told that I was talking nonsense. However, it turns out that the Low Pay Commission finally agrees with those of us who believe that those aged 21 have the same bills as those who are older.

I welcome that change. Will the Minister take the opportunity, on behalf of his colleagues in years gone by—some of whom are in the Cabinet now, I note—to apologise to those of us who argued the position on age discrimination? I note that age discrimination still exists in relation to national minimum wage rates, and I believe that is nonsensical. Two workers working beside each other, one aged 17 and the other 37—let us say they are flipping hamburgers at a McDonald’s franchise—should get paid the exact same wage for doing the exact same job. I hope the Minister will explore that with the Low Pay Commission to ensure there is no future age discrimination, despite the welcome change that the Government have made.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Stephens]

I give way to a good friend I served with on the Work and Pensions Committee.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but—I have employed young people myself—is it not right to allow employers the discretion to discriminate between various employees on the basis of their ability and readiness to work, and indeed to pay a younger employee, perhaps, marginally more for their greater efficiency than another employee, rather than constrain all employers within the tight rules he would impose?

[Chris Stephens]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. That provision already exists, but we are talking about the minimum wage rate—the very floor—and that should not be subject to age discrimination. He is correct that some employers have grades and spinal column points, and that is allowed. That reflects people’s experience, how long they have been with the employer and all the rest of it. That does happen, but I do not believe the bottom line—the absolute minimum that a worker can be paid—should be subject to any age discrimination at all. We cannot have two workers doing the exact same job on different wage rates because of their age, not because of their experience. There is a difference between age and experience.

I listened intently to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, who is correct about the economic conditions and the fact that in-work poverty still exists. The Government have failed to implement the report that they asked Matthew Taylor for: only seven of the 59 recommendations have been enacted. Now, I do not want every single one of those recommendations to be enacted, but to do only seven out of 59 is disgraceful.

As the hon. Gentleman said, wages are being dragged down in this country through shifts being cancelled and because people are in what I would argue is bogus self-employment—zero-hours contracts. I note that those issues are covered in a private Member’s Bill to be debated on 26 April, the Workers (Rights and Definition) Bill, which is in my name. I hope the Minister and shadow Minister will welcome the Bill and indicate that they will support it.

When I intervened on the Minister, I made, I think, a very important point. I asked how many UK Government workers will benefit from this delegated legislation. I again refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am the chair of the PCS parliamentary group. To the best of my knowledge, there are tens of thousands of UK Government workers who are paid the national minimum wage, including some employed by the Department for Work and Pensions. I invite the right hon. Member for New Forest West, who sits on the Work and Pensions Committee, to have a look at that, because it is a serious issue that so many workers in the Department for Work and Pensions have to rely on the benefits they are administrating because they are on the national minimum wage. I invite the Minister to write to all Committee members and tell us how many Government employees are paid the national minimum wage.

It is not just the DWP—incredibly, some of those on the minimum wage are employed by HMRC. Some of those employed to chase tax avoidance and evasion, and perhaps to tackle multinational companies that do not pay the rates they should, are paid the national minimum wage. Will the Minister write to tell us how many UK Government employees are being paid the national minimum wage? That is important, because the wage increases he has announced today are what UK Government employees will be getting. That will be their only pay increase this year, and I hope he will take that away.

I want to mention enforcement, because it is important that the Government outline how they will enforce this delegated legislation laid today. My concern is that there are far too many vacancies in the national minimum wage rate compliance unit; perhaps the Minister can tell us how many there are. If there are vacancies, they will lead to the backlog referred to by the shadow Minister and the chasing of unpaid wages for years. I hope the Minister will be able to answer those points when he sums up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am purely responding to the points that the hon. Gentleman raised, to try to make him understand there is a balance to be struck in the economy between jobs and pay. That is the balance we are trying to strike.

The hon. Gentleman and the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, made points about enforcement, which we take very seriously. We have doubled the compliance budget between 2015-16 and today to £27.8 million. We have ordered employers to reimburse £100 million to 1 million workers. We take this very seriously.

The naming and shaming scheme was suspended during covid. I understood why, but I was very keen to reintroduce it. It is the principal deterrent. I reassure the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston and other members of the Committee that, whenever we are about to do a naming round, we write to all the employers and tell them that they are going to be named. We get a lot of push-back, and we push right back again. There is no excuse for not paying the minimum wage. We have named a total of 3,200 businesses since 2013, including more than 500 just last month.

The hon. Gentleman raised the point about the vacancy in the Low Pay Commission. We are actively seeking candidates for that; if anybody is out there listening, I am very happy for them to come forward. I am very confident that new chair Baroness Stroud will do a fantastic job.

The SNP spokesman said that he wants a higher living wage, which I completely understand. He is very willing to nail his colours to the mast, unlike the Opposition, about where he thinks that should be, but I gently push back to him as well on the balance we need to strike here. The hospitality sector in Scotland is struggling as well as ours, and others are too. We must make sure we get that balance right. I have to say that in Scotland the failure rate in hospitality is even worse, being 30% higher than it is in England. That is partly down to the fact that Scotland has not passed on the rates money for those hospitality businesses, as has been done in England. The average pub in Scotland is £15,000 a year worse off because of that policy.

[Chris Stephens]

Surely, the big problem in the hospitality industry is the fact that worker after worker is being discriminated against in that industry. Zero-hours contracts are rampant—people turn up for a shift and they are told the shift has been cancelled. Surely that is the big problem. The Minister is not seriously defending bad employers, is he?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I would never do that; as a former employer myself, I would never do that. However, I do not accept the picture that the hon. Member paints. The hospitality sector is a fantastic sector in this country, with many good businesses and many good employers. For him to trash the reputation of the sector in that way, saying that zero-hours contracts are “rampant” in the sector—I think that he should just check his language. That sector does a fine job under very difficult circumstances, and the circumstances are far more difficult in Scotland.

Regarding the Low Pay Commission, the hon. Member made the point about younger workers on lower pay. That is a very fair point; he raises it time and again. It is our position and the position of the Low Pay Commission that younger people are more susceptible to a weaker labour market. That is why we have different rates. I declare my interest—I have daughters of that age who earn the lower rates of the minimum wage and I am very happy that that is the case, because I would rather that they had a job than no job at this point in time.

The minimum wage and the national living wage are floors, not ceilings. If good employers pay more, and many do, clearly we welcome that.

I will just conclude—

[Chris Stephens]

Before the Minister concludes, can he answer this question about UK Government employees? How many of them are on the national minimum wage? Can he say whether the Government have a plan to deal with that situation?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As I said before, I do not know the answer to that question; if the hon. Gentleman wants to put down a written question on the subject, we can give him an answer to it by separate means.

This debate is an important reminder of the good that Government can achieve—a sentiment that I am sure will be echoed by Committee members. I thank the Low Pay Commission once again for its advice this year, which has been as expert as ever, and I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024.

Post Office Ltd

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is certainly of concern to the Government as well. The inquiry is there to ascertain exactly who did what, or who did not do anything when they could have done something. The Met police will conduct investigations and take forward prosecutions wherever they choose. That is not something we seek to influence, although as I have said from this Dispatch Box before, I would welcome somebody being charged or criminal charges being brought against somebody for what has happened in this horrendous scandal.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

The family members of a terminally ill constituent came to my surgery in Corkerhill on Friday; that person was a shopkeeper in the highlands who, like so many, were caught up with unexplained shortfalls in Horizon totals, and although that did not lead to criminal action, they paid up to avoid trouble—often borrowing from other sources to do so. Can the Minister tell us whether work will be done to ensure that we know exactly how much in excess the Post Office claimed through all Horizon errors? Can he also tell me in general terms how he will ensure that those who are terminally ill get the justice and compensation they richly deserve?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am sorry to hear about the hon. Member’s particular case. The most important thing we can do is to get compensation to those people as quickly as possible. We have the first scheme that was implemented, which sounds as though that is the right one for his constituent—the historical shortfall scheme. I assume they have made an application to that scheme, and they should be compensated accordingly. About 2,400 people applied on time; 100% have received offers and 84% have accepted those offers. That is a route to compensation. On the excess, we are very keen to find out exactly where that money went, and how it was dealt with when it did appear in some kind of suspense account. That is something we are working on, but we are certainly keen to make sure people are compensated. It is the most important thing we can do right now.

Horizon: Compensation and Convictions

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

To answer: yes, yes and yes. Yes, we want a rapid legal process, and that is exactly what we are discussing today. I am keen to deliver that as quickly as possible. The Post Office has stopped prosecuting—it has not prosecuted since 2015—but the Justice Secretary will look at the wider aspects of private prosecutions. My thoughts on Paula Vennells are exactly the same as my hon. Friend’s. It is a perfect opportunity for her to hand back her CBE voluntarily. Further down the line, if the Williams inquiry is able to assign blame, other potential avenues could be taken.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

One of the most chilling parts of the dramatisation revealed that dozens, if not hundreds, of people were told, “This is only happening to you. You are the only one who is reporting a problem with this system.” It is safe to assume that someone, or some individuals, oversaw and dreamt up that particular corporate spin. May I push the Minister further, and ask whether he agrees with many in the House that the Government now need to recover the bonus payments made to the executives who oversaw that corporate lie?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I agree with that description. The dramatisation was indeed chilling, not least that part of it. It made you feel physically sick to keep hearing those words spoken to individual postmasters: “It is only happening to you.” That was very disturbing, and it clearly must have been a corporate position.

I share the hon. Gentleman’s ambition when it comes to what he regards as sanctions, and indeed other sanctions that are applicable, but I think we need to follow a process, particularly in respect of individuals. We believe that the best route towards identifying who is responsible and holding those people to account for what they did is Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry.

Draft Code of Practice on Reasonable Steps to be taken by a Trade Union (Minimum Service Levels)

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 General Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I cannot speak on behalf of my colleagues, but I kept doing my daily job, as I am sure the hon. Member did.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I have not finished responding to the intervention from the hon. Member for Glasgow East. I kept on doing my daily duty, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman did. I will make a little progress, if I can.

The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 amends the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to enable regulations to be made specifying minimum service levels and the services to which they apply. Where minimum service levels regulations are in force, if a trade union gives an employer a notice of strike action under section 234A of the 1992 Act, the employer may issue the trade union with a work notice that identifies persons who are required to work and the work that they are required to carry out during the strike to secure minimum levels of service.

[Chris Stephens]

The Minister mentions employers. For reasons that are unclear to me and perhaps beyond my understanding, we are discussing only one piece of delegated legislation today. Where is the code of practice for employers, and when is it likely to come before a Delegated Legislation Committee?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We did not think it necessary to develop a statutory code of practice for employers, but we are producing guidance for employers on how they can comply with their regulations and engage with their workforce in such situations.

To comply with section 234E of the 1992 Act, which was inserted by the 2023 Act, trade unions should take reasonable steps to ensure that their members who are identified in a work notice comply with that notice and do not take strike action during the periods in which the work notice requires them to work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the code puts the onus on trade unions. How odd is it that we are in a world in which a Government instruct a trade union to tell employees to attend the workplace? I cannot think of anything more bizarre. But the measure is not actually about ensuring that people attend work; it is about undermining collective industrial action. From what we have seen today, it is clear that that is exactly the Government’s intention.

The trade union’s duty to take reasonable steps to contact members as soon as is “reasonably practical”, contained in paragraph 19, is contradicted in step 2 of the code, which provides guidance on how to encourage members to comply with a work notice. In this step, the code states that once a union has identified all its members, it should communicate this to them via a compliance notice. Paragraph 23 states that the union

“should send the compliance notice before the strike action”

but that it would be “reasonable” to send the notice

“once it is clear that the work notice will not be subject to variation by the employer—either because the last day on which the employer can vary the work notice without the union’s agreement has passed or because the employer has notified the union in writing that it will not vary the work notice”.

That is completely inconsistent with what the code of practice states earlier—that the union should contact its members as soon as is “reasonably practical”. They cannot both be right. Given the consequences of getting this wrong for both the trade union and the individual, the code of practice really ought not to contain such a mixed message. Will the Minister therefore confirm whether a union is supposed to wait until the conditions in paragraph 23 are met, or just get on with it as soon as is “reasonably practical”, as paragraph 19 suggests?

Beyond that issue, the code’s recommendations on encouraging members to comply with a work notice are plainly unreasonable, misleading and complex. Step 2 of the code contains stipulations that are drafted in such a way that grounds for legal challenge will inevitably be opened. Paragraph 26 and annex A, in particular, can be seen to do this. Paragraph 26 includes a list of eight features that a compliance notice must state “clearly and conspicuously”, and annex A contains a pro forma template for unions to use, which is recommended for use by unions at paragraph 27. Paragraph 27 states that a union can amend the template but that the compliance notice must retain

“the overall substance and effect of the notice”.

So why go down this road at all? Why go to the trouble of drafting a template letter and then say that unions can vary it? Is that not just inviting trouble?

We know that the slightest transgression in an industrial action ballot can lead some employers to seek injunctions, even though the practical effect of that transgression is nil, so there is a concern that any deviations from the template will invite legal challenge from employers. The TUC believes that deviations

“will almost certainly lead some employers to seek to legally challenge unions”.

Does the Minister agree with that point of view? How does he think that such satellite litigation will aid the resolution of industrial disputes? Can he also explain the rationale for including a pro forma template on top of the guidance contained in paragraph 26?

Unfortunately, that is not the only way in which the code could instigate legal challenge. Plenty of areas in the code appear to allow for challenges if the union makes an error. Paragraph 39, for instance, states:

“communicating with members whom the union knows are identified in a work notice to induce them to strike”

could constitute an act that undermines steps taken to comply with a work notice. Taken literally, that means that for the period of the work notice, the trade union cannot contact any member subject to one at all with any information on the industrial action. Is the Minister saying that on certain occasions, for a certain period, a trade union cannot contact some members to tell them what is happening with the strike? The mere mention that a strike is taking place could be considered an inducement to strike. I am interested to hear what the Minister says about that, because to me it looks like a fundamental attack on democratic freedoms.

If the Minister does not accept that that is the intention behind paragraph 39, does he accept that there could be a real problem in some circumstances—for example, where there is a technological or administrative error in distributing emails on a mailing list that could risk some of the wrong members receiving that email? Trade unions in those circumstances would lose their protection from liability in tort and employees would lose their automatic protection from unfair dismissal. Is that really what is intended with the code of practice, because that is what paragraph 39 seems to suggest?

The stakes are far too high for such an error to constitute a breach of the code, especially given that the names included in the work notice are liable to change, often at short notice. As there is already guidance in the code stating that compliance notices should include statements telling those on work notices to ignore calls to take part in strikes, paragraphs 38 to 40 seem excessively punitive and unnecessary. The only conclusion that one can draw from such a communication—a blackout around strikes—is that this is a deliberate attempt to undermine trade unions and impact the effectiveness of industrial action.

I will return briefly to the annex and paragraph 26; this is an example of the state trying to dictate the contents of a union’s communications with its members. First, according to the stipulation in paragraph 26(f), unions are expected to encourage workers to undertake the work set out in the work notices. We think it is inappropriate for a union to encourage a worker to comply with a work notice, as it could undermine the collective endeavour of industrial action. Yes, a union must advise a worker of the possible consequences of failing to comply with a work notice, but it is not the role of the state to instruct a union to do that in an enthusiastic way, as is implied in the code of practice.

What does “encourage” even mean? Is it like a football supporter encouraging their team from the terraces and cheering the team on? Is it sending text messages to a mobile phone with affirming messages such as “Please go to work today. I know you’ve got this”? It seems a very odd thing to request that a trade union encourage its members to go to work, given that presumably on every other day, the employee does not require such encouragement to turn up and do their job.

[Chris Stephens]

Is there not another concern that trade unions have flagged up? Trade union representatives will be identified in the work notices, so the trade union representative will be the one who is picked to, effectively, bust their own industrial action.

[Justin Madders]

Yes, I will get on to that—there is a bit more, I am afraid, Ms Nokes, because there is an awful lot to talk about. The measure fundamentally pits trade unionists against their core beliefs and principles. That does not seem to register with Government Members, but it really is doing that.

The requirement to encourage members to turn up for work is an odd thing to request, given the failure to explain the legal issues with the necessary accuracy in paragraph 26, which states that unions are advised to tell members that they should receive from the employer

“a statement that the member is an identified worker…and must comply with the…notice given to the union.”

But there is no obligation under the Act for an employer to communicate with workers named by the work notice. Employers need do so only if they want to keep open the option for dismissing them for not attending work. If not, they can let the trade union do all the work.

The code also states that the compliance notice should contain a comment stating that two notices should be received from the employer and that if the member receives both, they

“must carry out the work during the strike or could be subject to disciplinary proceedings which could include dismissal”.

However, the Act gives neither the employer nor the Government the power to compel people to attend work. What it actually does is state that a worker who has been notified by the employer that they are named in the work notice may be dismissed and denied the automatic right to protection from unfair dismissal for taking part in the strike. The code does not highlight that a worker who was dismissed might still be able to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under the general law.

The code and template letter are therefore misleading. But why do they have any reference to dismissal at all? The template requires the union to warn a member that

“you could also be dismissed as a result”

of not following the work notice. However, that is not what the Minister told us would happen. When he was at the Dispatch Box on Monday 22 May 2023, he said:

“The reality is that nobody will be sacked as a result of the legislation.”—[Official Report, 22 May 2023; Vol. 733, c. 103.]

If that still stands, why does the code of practice require unions to warn people of something that is not going to happen? Why would the Minister ask unions to write to their members about something that he said at the Dispatch Box would not happen? I invite him to withdraw his comments or, ideally, withdraw the whole draft code.

The compliance notice template in annex A states:

“The work required of you should be work which you normally do or work which you are capable of doing and is within your contract of employment.”

Can the Minister tell us whether the notice remains effective if it requires someone to undertake a role with which they are not familiar? After all, many contracts of employment have a catch-all clause requiring employees to undertake whatever duties their employer sees fit. At the very least, there ought to be some guidance on what the employee should do if they face such a request. That point also raises the question of what happens if a non-union member is included in a work notice, but the employer fails to contact them. Would they be subject to disciplinary procedures as well? Both those examples show how far the code is from providing certainty; it just adds more complexity and confusion.

The code of practice’s guidance on picketing is an element that came as a surprise, as there was no mention of it at all in the Act. It is covered by different legislation and a different code of practice. There was next to no discussion of picketing when the Bill passed through Parliament, so its inclusion in the code of practice is another example of the way in which this Government have sidestepped scrutiny at every opportunity. I see no legitimate reason for its inclusion; it seems that it is an attempt to expand the scope of the legislation via the back door. That is at complete odds with the purpose of a code of practice that is supposed to put flesh on the bones of how an Act works, not to expand its reach.

Step 3 of the code is simply titled “Picketing”. It sets standards on the union to instruct picket supervisors. Paragraph 33 states that

“the union should…use reasonable endeavours to ensure that picketers avoid, so far as reasonably practicable, trying to persuade members who are identified on the work notice not to cross the picket line at times when they are required by the work notice to work.”

The irony of a code of practice explaining what is meant by the term “reasonable steps” by using the phrase “reasonable endeavours” is certainly not lost on me. It is not exactly a great leap forward, is it? Using “reasonable endeavours” not to do something is a novel concept: it is usually a concept applicable where there are positive obligations on someone to act. I struggle to see how that translates into a negative obligation.

Certainly, nothing that I have heard today explains what that means in practice. But that is the point, isn’t it? This and many other areas in the code of practice leave important questions open to interpretation by the courts. It will take a case making its way to court, and probably several levels of appeal, before it becomes clear what “reasonable endeavours” a union must actually take to prevent members persuading those on a work notice not to cross a picket line. The weight of the punishments that the union and its workforce could be forced to pay will doubtless mean that unions will be cautious about how this works in practice.

This is a legal nonsense. It is quite blatantly a tactic from the Government to attack a union’s right to strike by blunting some of its most effective tools. However, it is a tactic that will add to court backlogs, as we have heard, and will cost the taxpayer, unions and businesses large sums of money when all these issues end up being litigated. Ultimately, it will do absolutely nothing to improve industrial relations in this country.

I will return to the crux of the extract from which I quoted: that picketers should not try to persuade workers listed in a work notice to join them on strike. It is clearly drafted to completely undermine the role of a picket, to the extent that it will be unworkable and difficult to enforce. How is a picket supervisor supposed to know who is on a work notice, especially if the notice runs to hundreds or even thousands of people? Are they expected to know them by appearance? Unless they are told otherwise, picketers are therefore going to have no idea who is bound by the work notice and who is not.

It is completely unclear how the picket supervisors, who are expected to execute this duty and enforce this measure, will be able to do so in practice. The aim of the picket is to encourage compliance with the strike, but the picket supervisor is expected to undertake duties well beyond ensuring that a worker named in a work notice simply is not hindered in going into work. It is another fundamental attack on the role of trade unions. Does the Minister understand that he is asking trade unions to turn on their core beliefs and jettison the very essence of what they stand for?

It is also unclear whether the Government have considered the case of Ezelin v. France, as the TUC’s submissions recommend. In that case, the European Court of Human Rights found that requiring a lawyer to disassociate himself from a demonstration infringed his rights under article 11 of the European convention on human rights? A response on that issue from the Minister, either in his closing speech or in writing after today’s proceedings, would be appreciated.

Other hon. Members wish to speak, so I will draw to a conclusion. We are being asked to vote on a code of practice that goes far beyond the legislation that it is meant to explain. It places potentially insurmountable burdens on unions, leaves important legal questions unanswered, requires unions to be the mouthpiece of the state and expects unions to enforce a draconian piece of legislation that goes against the very essence of their values. To top it all off, there is the threat, should unions not follow the guidance to the letter, of having to pay out exorbitant costs through proceedings in tort and of leaving all their striking workers vulnerable to being sacked.

It is clear what the code of practice seeks to achieve. As we said of the Act throughout its passage, it is an attack on trade unions and their members, and it undermines the fundamental right to strike. We cannot vote for it. No one who believes in freedom of association can vote for it in good conscience. The Government need to go back to the drawing board and redraft the code of practice—or, better still, get rid of the Act altogether.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

Thank you, Ms Nokes. I am surprised to have been called so early in the debate, because I was expecting finally to hear some sort of philosophical introduction or support from Government Back Benchers, but as we saw during the passage of the Bill, Government Back Benchers usually walk out and take their own industrial action—but without a ballot, I hasten to add, unlike the trade union movement. I thought that some Government Back Bencher would try to bind the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act and the code of practice together through some sort of philosophical introduction or ethos, so I am disappointed.

Even more incredible than what the Minister said to me was what he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East. The Minister said that there was no requirement for guidance for employers. Then, in reply to an intervention from the hon. Member for York Central, he said that there would be guidance but that it would not be statutory guidance. That is utterly ridiculous. If a Government were even-handed, they would have two statutory instruments together—one for trade unions and one for employers—so that everybody was clear.

We know what the game is here: to allow employers to use the legislation to bust industrial action. The Government know that the game is up. What is it about workers having decent wages that the Government are so repelled by? Why are they so repelled by workers standing up for good terms and conditions and having those wages to support their families? Is it because, if we had had consistent Conservative party rule since the 1800s, we would still have children going up chimneys? Or is it because, in the 1990s, as we all remember, the Conservative party bitterly opposed the original minimum wage legislation and that, after an acrimonious debate—

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Can I bring the hon. Member slightly more up to date? Could he cast his mind back to the 1970s, when industrial relations legislation introduced by the Heath Government ended up with five dockers being put in prison? They were then released. It was a headlong clash with the trade union movement, and it resulted in mass strikes all over the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct. The Conservative party never forgave the trade union movement for defeating the Heath Government in the ’70s. It still remembers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East said, it has not legislated for Government Ministers. When they decided to go on strike—when they all walked out together—they did so without a ballot, let us remember. That was inconveniencing the public, was it not?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I just want to point out that there is a difference between going on strike and resigning, though the hon. Gentleman might not understand it. There are no restrictions in the code or anywhere else that stop someone from resigning, which is what those Government Ministers did.

[Chris Stephens]

I think the Minister will find that it was co-ordinated action and that, unlike trade union action, no ballot was required.

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend will be aware that it was actually worse than that. What those Ministers were doing was practising fire and rehire: they resigned, and many of them were then reinstated in their previous job. I am thinking of the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), for example. Perhaps the Minister may be just a little bit out of touch with what went on.

[Chris Stephens]

I say this charitably: as good-natured as the Minister can be, he is often accused by me and others of not understanding what actually takes place in an organised workplace. It is quite clear that Government Ministers collectively organised to leave their posts, causing huge inconvenience to the public, but I do not see delegated legislation to impose minimum service levels on Government Ministers.

[Neil Coyle]

Isn’t that because the public could not tell the difference between when they were in office and when they resigned?

[Chris Stephens]

That may very well be the case. The hon. Member makes an eloquent point.

[Rachael Maskell]

Every single day this Government are in office, they are unable to maintain minimum service levels across a vast array of our public services, so why does the hon. Gentleman think they are requiring more workers to attend work on strike days than the rest of the year?

[Chris Stephens]

That is a magnificent point. This has been debated on various occasions on which we have asked the Government—perhaps the Minister will rise to his feet; I will take his intervention right now—why minimum service levels are necessary on industrial action days, but not at any other time. If there were statutory guidance and a code of practice for employers, one would certainly ask the question: would employers demand that there be more workers on shift on days of industrial action than on a normal working day? The Minister knows this, because it has been raised consistently when we discuss these things that employers are always at it.

I was a proud trade union activist. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a proud member of the Glasgow city branch of Unison. We had to negotiate life-and-limb cover for strike days—yes, the legislation sets out that there has to be life-and-limb cover—and employers would ask for more people on shift on days of industrial action than on normal working days. I will take an intervention right now if the Minister can give us an assurance that no employer across these islands will ask more workers to be at work on days of industrial action than on normal working days. I am more than happy to take an intervention from the Minister right now.

I note for the record that the Minister has not risen to his feet.

Since the passage of the anti-strike Act, there have been suggestions that the Act’s provisions on minimum service levels would be similar to the norms of Europe. Well, no, they are not. I will not repeat all the clarifications that I and others have offered on what actually happens in Europe, as those fell on deaf ears. I will, however, repeat our warnings that this nasty legislation will prove to be severely counterproductive and damaging overall to society. Taking a negotiated, voluntary and successful approach to minimal service levels and mutating it into an imposed, coercive and ultimately failed system is very foolish, but it is unsurprising from those who choose not to listen or learn.

Let me comment in detail on one sector in particular: the health sector. I will do so by referring extensively to the TUC’s consultation response on minimum service levels for hospital services. I will also refer to the views of the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing.

The TUC believes that the Act

“is unfair, undemocratic and likely in breach of our international legal commitments.”

Its view is that it is

“the fundamental right of a worker to take industrial action to defend their pay and conditions”

and that

“secretaries of state are to be given enormous power to define and introduce minimum service requirements”.

It says the Act is

“draconian: it could lead to individual workers being sacked for taking part in industrial action that was supported in a democratic process”,

with trade unions facing large damages if deemed to be non-compliant with this code of practice. Perhaps the Minister will answer the question with which he was challenged by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. The Minister was quoted as saying that no one would be dismissed as a result of this legislation, but where does it say that?

According to the TUC, the Act is “unnecessary”—it is “custom and practice” to agree “life-and-limb cover”—and “counter-productive”. That, however, is not the view of only the TUC, which points out that the Government’s own impact assessment suggests that

“industrial disputes are likely to become more protracted and prolonged as a result of introducing minimum service levels”.

In summary, the TUC believes the approach is unacceptable, anti-democratic, draconian and, ultimately, both unnecessary and counterproductive.

Given the purpose of this Delegated Legislation Committee, a further quote from the TUC might prove to be the undoing of the code of practice:

“Given the fact that the services subject to MSLs are to be determined by Secondary Legislation, there remains a number of uncertainties around (a) the extent to which the policy would restrict the right to strike, (b) the relationship between the ability to strike and the strength of workers’ ability to bargain on terms and conditions of employment through collective bargaining, and (c) the value workers place on collective bargaining relating to terms and conditions of employment.”

Those comments are also derived from the Government’s impact assessment.

Conservative Members may simply choose to disregard the findings of such an impact assessment. They would find interesting backers in doing so, as the Government’s own Regulatory Policy Committee judged the impact assessment of the Act

“red-rated as not fit-for-purpose”,

and found that the Government make

“use of assumptions in the analysis which are not supported by evidence”—

here is us thinking that the Boris Johnson days were gone. There are other, less parliamentary ways to describe making use of assumptions that are not supported by the evidence, which I will leave to the imagination of Members.

Let us now explore the views of the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing. Agreement among health sector unions is clear, as the BMA also considers the proposals for minimum strike levels to be

“counterproductive, undemocratic, unworkable, and draconian”.

The legislation seems to be little more than a smokescreen. Instead of addressing the state of the NHS, which currently compromises patient safety on a daily basis, or the underlying reasons why doctors and other healthcare staff have been striking in some parts of the UK, if not in others, the Government are trying to paint healthcare workers as the villains of the piece, rather than the victims of governmental action and inaction. I specifically mention striking “in some parts of the UK,” because a different and more respectful approach to public service employees in Scotland has resulted in something closer to industrial harmony. Perhaps others should watch and learn from what the Scottish Government are achieving in public sector relations.

Throughout these islands, a long-standing history of constructive joint working between NHS employers and trade unions at a local level has patient safety at its heart. The introduction of minimum service levels in hospitals would poison those industrial relations. It would replace a system under which those who understand the local situation tailor their response to the needs of hospital service users with a national service level mandated from Whitehall and designed by those who arrogantly assume that they know better.

Although the Government’s consultation seemed to find that several critical incidents arose due to strike action, data from a freedom of information request suggests otherwise. It is unclear whether any were a direct result of action being called. Rather than demonstrating that patient safety was compromised due to industrial action, the data shows the importance of tackling the stresses that the NHS faces on a daily basis.

The BMA has repeatedly raised concerns that the “reasonable steps” that unions would be required to take to comply with the Act would force unions to act in a way that undermines their responsibility to represent their members. It is not “reasonable” to expect unions to take any steps that would undermine legitimate strike action, for which they will have passed a high threshold to have a lawful mandate under trade union legislation.

[Mick Whitley]

I declare an interest as a member of Unite the union. The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. Does he share my concern that by allowing employers to amend work notices up to the end of the fourth day before industrial action commences, the code risks allowing unscrupulous employers to create formidable and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles for trade unions to overcome, thereby giving employers the opportunity to intentionally undermine entirely legitimate and otherwise lawful strike action?

[Chris Stephens]

I agree with all that. I know that this will surprise some Conservative Members, but I do believe that there are unscrupulous employers out there. I believe that unscrupulous employers already use existing anti-trade union legislation to try to stop industrial action taking place with some daft minutiae over lists of members and so on. The point I was making is the Government have already imposed extremely high thresholds that trade unios must cross before industrial action takes place.

The draft code of practice does not achieve the necessary clarity of what the duty will mean in practice for trade unions. Instead it presents issues for trade unions over how they will be able practically to implement the proposals. It creates incredibly unrealistic timescales on unions, requiring them to start identifying members

“as soon as reasonably practical”

after receiving a work notice. Such weasel words threaten vindictive penalties for being unable to guess what a Conservative Minster thinks is “reasonable”.

I will refer to some surprising comments from the Royal College of Nursing. They are surprising because the RCN was advised that the legislation would not affect it at all, but perhaps it was not too surprised to discover that that was not the case. A Minister at the Dispatch Box told nurses that the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill was “not about nurses.” That was always flagrantly untrue, as the RCN clearly stated at the time. Specifically, the Leader of the House said on 26 January 2023 that the Bill was “not about nurses”, and that it was “wrong” to suggest that it was.

Through its draft regulations for NHS ambulance services and the NHS patient transport service, the Government are now explicitly seeking to impose minimum service levels that apply specifically to nursing staff in ambulance services. The RCN asks that Parliament, including Members present here, should hold the Government to their words and reject regulations that would impose minimum service levels on nursing staff.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Like my hon. Friend, I am a member of Unison in Glasgow. All the concerns that he has raised about how the code applies to the NHS, and particularly how it applies to nurses, have been raised with me by constituents. They are incredibly concerned about the pernicious nature of the Government’s legislation and their actions more generally. My hon. Friend was right to say earlier that the way to avoid strike action in the NHS and across our public services is to have decent industrial relations, to invest in them properly, and to welcome people into this country who are willing to supplement the workforce, which is so desperately crying out for more pairs of hands.

[Chris Stephens]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I hope that the Minister takes that on board because good industrial relations mean a happy workforce, and there is actually less industrial action when we have good industrial relations.

I will conclude, Ms Nokes, with some comments about Scotland. That will not surprise you, nor anyone in this Committee. I have already referred to how a different and more respectful approach towards public service employees in Scotland has resulted in greater harmony and far fewer strikes. The RCN explicitly recognised that the imposition of the proposed code of practice on Scotland and Wales would be additionally problematic, as it would explicitly contradict the wishes of the elected devolved Administrations. We will look to see whether the UK Government can echo a similar respect for Scottish rights and autonomy as that shown by trade union colleagues south of the border.

Football and Dementia

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southend United West, and I wish her well in her efforts to secure the future of her team. I would like to express my gratitude to the Backbench Business Committee—to my dear friend the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) and his colleagues—for giving us the opportunity to participate in this crucial debate in the House of Commons. I also thank my good friend, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), as well as the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), for their support in securing Back-Bench time for the debate.

I also want to acknowledge the Professional Footballers’ Association and the invaluable contribution of Dr Judith Gates, who is one of my constituents. Dr Gates is a distinguished academic and educator, renowned for her expertise in chronic traumatic encephalopathy, the condition that has been linked to repetitive head impacts in sport. On Monday, in Ferryhill in County Durham, we will witness the launch of Head Safe Football, a new charity with a specific focus on brain-related issues in football. Dr Gates spearheaded that initiative at the request of the footballing community, aiming to provide emotional support, evidence-based knowledge and up-to-date research for footballers and their families.

Dr Gates’ dedication to this cause is deeply personal, because she is the spouse of the former England and Middlesborough footballer Bill Gates. Bill was diagnosed with dementia after a career that included a training programme involving hundreds of headers every day. Unfortunately, that led to headaches with migraines, and caused him to retire from football aged only 30. Bill was a renowned centre-half and is remembered for his prowess in the air, but his legacy is promoting Head Safe Football and raising awareness of the link between repetitive head impacts and CTE. I also commend the Scottish Football Association, as the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber did, on its proactive stance on addressing CTE and other brain diseases that are caused through football. Its efforts—including research initiatives, concussion protocols, restrictions on heading in youth football and limits on repetitive heading in training—have set a commendable example.

The evidence overwhelmingly supports the link between repetitive heading of a football and brain diseases. Several people have suggested to me that that link is theoretical, or that there is some doubt about it, but there is absolutely no doubt: there is a huge amount of evidence, both at home and from abroad, and I will mention some of those academic studies later in my speech. My late father was a coalminer, and sadly, miners were subjected to many industrial diseases including pneumoconiosis, chest diseases, and vibration white finger through the use of pneumatic power tools. Many of my constituents worked in the textile industry—in the rag trade—and many of those women machinists suffered Dupuytren’s contracture as a result of their work.

All those conditions are recognised as occupational diseases.

I am looking at the Minister; I do not know whether he has the power to direct—or he could ask—the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council to look at the issue. Until CTE is formally recognised as an industrial disease, the compensation that the people involved and their families so richly deserve will not be available to them. We often focus on the top-flight celebrity professional footballer, but many footballers who do not play at the highest level have been similarly exposed to repetitive brain injury. They are living in hardship and we have a duty of care to them.

I want to mention again the study that the University of Glasgow carried out quite recently, in October 2019. It revealed a clear connection between professional football players and neurodegenerative diseases. The research compared the mortality rates of more than 7,600 former Scottish footballers with a general population sample of more than 230,000 individuals—a very large sample. The findings indicated that the mortality rate due to neurodegenerative diseases among the former professional footballers was three and a half times higher, with notable increases in Alzheimer’s disease, motor neurone disease and Parkinson’s disease.

Another study, by the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, published in The Lancet here in the UK, showed that footballers are 50% more likely to develop dementia compared with the general population. The research involved comparative analysis of the health records of 6,000 top division Swedish players and over 56,000 non-footballers. The study also explored the contrast between outfield players and goalkeepers. Researchers discovered that, as we might expect, outfield players faced a much higher risk of Alzheimer’s and other types of dementia compared with the general population. In contrast, goalkeepers, who seldom head the ball, showed no increase in Alzheimer’s, dementia or similar conditions.

The World Health Organisation says that between 5% and 8% of the general population over the age of 60 have dementia. However, the figure is different for England’s greatest ever team, the 1966 World cup winning team—we are not being partisan in this debate, but that victory was achieved under Harold Wilson’s Labour Government; I think we also won the Eurovision song contest that year. Research carried out by “Sky Sports” news found that 46%—almost half—of that World cup winning team were suffering from some degenerative brain condition such as Alzheimer’s disease.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I thank my good friend for giving way. I had actually forgotten that England won the World cup in 1966; it is not something we hear often.

The hon. Gentleman has been dealing with the issue of scepticism. Does he agree that many former wingers actually worked the connection out? They were crossing the ball and worked out that the high-profile cases involved either centre halves heading the ball out or centre forwards heading the ball in.

[Grahame Morris]

That is a good point. Academic studies have identified that goalkeepers are not at any more risk than any other member of the population, but centre halves and centre forwards certainly have been. I am talking not just about the 90 minutes of football, but the many hours of training—consistently heading the ball. The general community and football authorities have a duty of care to the people who are suffering.

I want to mention another academic study, from Boston University in the United States. It identified CTE in young amateur athletes who played contact sports. After examining post mortem the brains of 152 participants who had died under the age of 30, it found that 41.4% had signs of CTE. More than 70% of those diagnosed were amateur athletes. The figures are shocking. It is imperative to pursue further research to determine not whether there is a link—there is; that is not in dispute—but whether there is a safe threshold for heading the ball. The ideal level is zero, but football authorities must undertake comprehensive research to fulfil their duty of care to players and establish a head-safe level.

I am not anti-football; I love our national sport, but I want it to be safe. I want us to recognise our responsibility to former players who are now suffering from these terrible conditions. Players themselves are rightly concerned about the risks associated with heading. A study by the Drake Foundation found that 66% of amateur footballers feared the impact of heading the ball on their health, with 70% advocating for guidelines to restrict heading in training and 48% desiring reduced heading in matches. There is also substantial support for extending rules in youth football, with 56% of parents endorsing restrictions on heading in training for children up to the age of 18.

The onus lies squarely on football authorities to ensure that their protocols and practices prioritise player safety. That includes ongoing research, immediate reductions in heading during training and matches, and a willingness to adapt the game to mitigate risks. There is no doubt that the game has changed. When I was first watching the game, it was much more physical. There were substitutions, but I think only one was allowed. The game has evolved and changed and it is right that it has. There will inevitably be a shift in the way football is played, but such evolution is inherent to the sport.

I hope SNP Members do not mind me mentioning the recent England-Scotland match on Tuesday night; I do not mean to be divisive—[Interruption.] I have forgotten the score already. I am not gloating.

[Chris Stephens]

I just want to put on the record that Scotland do not do too well in football against lesser nations.

[Grahame Morris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.

The England-Scotland match was the 150th anniversary of international football, but I am sure it bore little resemblance to the inaugural England-Scotland international game in 1872 in how it was played; I do not just mean the longer shorts and so on. So the game does change and that is not a bad thing. It is critical to recognise that player safety should not be perceived as a threat to the game. Instead, it should be viewed as a new chapter in the ongoing development of a sport that we all cherish.

To safeguard football for generations to come, we must wholeheartedly support the concept of head-safe football. From a Government perspective, the implications are clear: we should adopt a public health approach. The Minister holds a crucial role in funding education and awareness efforts to future-proof football for today and tomorrow. That includes raising awareness about the risks associated with repetitive heading and its links to degenerative brain disease.

The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber mentioned the former West Brom striker, the legend Jeff Astle, who died in 2002 from a neurodegenerative disease associated with heading the ball. The coroner ruled he suffered death through an industrial disease, although it is not identified officially as an industrial disease. It is worth noting that my constituent Dr Judith Gates has diligently lobbied the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council over the past three years to recognise CTE as an industrial disease. Despite presenting extensive and authoritative information and research, the IIAC has unfortunately fallen short and failed in its duty to acknowledge this disease. I hope the Minister will be able to assist in his closing remarks in persuading the IIAC to look at that again. The evidence supporting that recognition is overwhelming and includes numerous peer-reviewed studies and coroner verdicts. It is high time to prompt the IIAC to step on to the pitch and fulfil its responsibilities by acknowledging the issue and taking the necessary actions.

Football holds a special place in our national psyche. It is a sport enjoyed by millions of people each week. It is evident that participation is on the rise. The professional football landscape is evolving, with National League North team South Shields transitioning to a full-time model, signalling growth even in the lower divisions, yet the most remarkable growth lies in the Women’s Super League and Women’s Championship.

The Lionesses have been a source of inspiration for the nation. We have had tremendous success and it is heartening to witness more young girls embracing football and getting involved in active sport. However, as the women’s game expands, it brings new challenges because medical studies indicate that female athletes are almost twice as likely to develop CTE as their male counterparts. I wholeheartedly support the surge in women’s football, but amidst the growth the safety of players remains paramount. Given the additional risks faced by female athletes, I hope the WSL will be a trailblazer in establishing head-safe football.

Football is a tight-knit community, and it must address this issue both now and in the future. Clubs that have prospered thanks to the skills and contributions of players such as Bill Gates, my constituent, have a responsibility to prioritise the wellbeing of their players. It is imperative that we take action to support a generation of players who are currently facing the challenges of degenerative brain diseases such as dementia and Alzheimer’s. With the clear connection between repetitive heading and CTE now established, it is high time we focus on increasing awareness and providing education at all levels of the game. Additionally, we should implement policies and procedures to restrict heading, whether during training sessions, or in actual games.

I ask the Minister to make it clear to the football authorities that this is their opportunity to deliver head-safe football, reducing the risk today and progressing the research to understand if there is a safe level of heading. If as an industry—a multi-billion-pound industry at the highest level—the football authorities do not accelerate their action on this matter, the Minister must be clear that the Government will have no option but to intervene to protect public health.

I would like to end with the words of my constituent Bill Gates, who on his diagnosis told his family, “It is too late for me, but I want to plant a tree, so others can benefit from its shade.” I thank Judith, Bill and the whole family. I will do everything I can to future-proof football for today’s and tomorrow’s players. I hope the Minister will commit to doing the same.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I thank my good friends, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), and the hon. Member for Southend West (Anna Firth), who made an excellent speech; I know her predecessor, the great David Amess, would undoubtedly have been here taking part in this debate, pushing the case not only for Southend United, but for his beloved West Ham United. I am sure that when West Ham won the Europa conference league he was looking down with a smile.

I also commend Labour Member of the Scottish Parliament Michael Marra, who has been leading some debates on this in the Scottish Parliament. I commend, too, the Daily Record for its support for that campaign. I was very pleased that it published a story highlighting this debate. Michael Marra and the Daily Record have had the support of former footballers who have written to the authorities asking that the diagnosis of an industrial injury be put in place, including Alex McLeish, former Scotland manager, and the great Sir Alex Ferguson.

We have now heard evidence of industrial injury from Glasgow and Nottingham universities and Boston University in the United States, and it is clear that there is definitely a link and that football injuries such as head injuries or heading the ball are leading to dementia, Alzheimer’s and other conditions. Why is that? The Daily Record published a story about this debate and I made the mistake—a schoolboy error as it would be known in football—of reading the comments afterwards; a journalist once told me, “Never read the comments of a story you’re mentioned in.” There was a lot of scepticism in the comments. What frustrated me was people saying that there was no link.

As I said in my earlier exchange with my good friend the hon. Member for Easington, I am doing some work with Rangers football club former players association on this: they are very interested in this topic because they also think there is something in it. They have been providing support, thanks to donations from their supporters to former players. That includes paying for respite care for the families of those former players who have dementia and ensuring that family members can have a break for an hour or two a week to go off and do shopping and other things. The work the association is doing in this regard should also be commended.

There was initial scepticism even within the former players community when this link was first talked about, but the advocates of there being something in it and of the fact that the evidence is now clear includes former wingers. They have worked out that they were running down the wing and crossing the ball and it was then being headed by the centre-half or centre-forward, and it is they who are now the high-profile cases—many of the great players that have been mentioned in this debate.

I want to highlight the issue of wages, too, which has also been touched on. There are some sceptics who think we are advocating for rich people. Telephone number-type salaries flash up on Sky Sports News on transfer window final day, but that does not reflect the situation for many who are caught up in this. As has been said, those who played at the top level in the ’60s and ’70s probably earned twice the amount of an average tradesman and those in the lower leagues would have been getting about the same wage as an average tradesman. Some play, of course, for the love of the game, and they might only get £10; I remember some football clubs in Scotland even in the 1990s would just pay travel expenses and £10 for playing, and there were reasons for that, of course.

Gordon Smith, the former Rangers, Brighton and Hove Albion and Manchester City player, and former chief executive of the Scottish Football Association, had a chat with me about this issue, when he heard it was to be debated. He told me that when he signed for Rangers football club, Jock Wallace, the then manager, told him, “I have been trying to sign you, Gordon, for the last four seasons.” Gordon Smith did not know that because, at the time, the registration of a player was held by the club, and if the club chose to keep the player, they would not be told that another football club was interested in them. That was driving wages down.

We need to hear from the Minister today to ensure that this matter is recognised as an industrial injury in the work he is doing with his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions. As was touched on by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the ball that was used in the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s was a lot heavier and harder, especially if people were playing in inclement weather. It might surprise you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but in Scotland we do get inclement weather during the football season. If there was rain or the ball was caught in mud, it would become even heavier, and that is almost certainly one of the reasons this situation has come about.

It is fairly clear that there is cross-party consensus on this matter, and I thank all the Members who signed up to have this debate today. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, because we now need a strategy with his Department and the Department for Work and Pensions so that our heroes can get the support they need.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

I am sure that anybody who is interested in football and the many people whose families have been affected by neurodegenerative diseases, such as dementia, will be interested in what is being said today. I am sure they will want to support the calls that have been made for research, proper safety provisions and proper support.

There is no doubt that dementia is more prevalent among football players than in the general population. We have heard about the research that underlies that. The recent studies that I have been looking at have found that professional footballers are three and a half times more likely to die from neurodegenerative diseases than the general population. That is quite a statistic. We have also heard about the study in Sweden that concluded that male football players who had played in the Swedish top division had a significantly increased risk. That was among outfield players, but not goalkeepers. The evidence is all pointing in the same direction. It is not necessarily new evidence, either. We have known about this issue for some time, with studies from as early as 2017 showing a great risk of dementia among professional football players. I say this as a very big football fan, but I know there are risks that come with sport. There are risks associated with participating in football, but those risks need to be balanced against the need to keep people safe.

This debate is welcome, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and colleagues who secured it. I put on record my gratitude to Tony Higgins, who was mentioned earlier. He gave a helpful briefing, which I attended, detailing the issues around football and other sports and neurodegenerative diseases. It was thought-provoking, particularly in relation to the health impacts on people who are at their work. I usually look at football through a different lens—I am enjoying the sporting element—but we cannot take away from the fact that the people on the pitch who we watch in football stadiums and on the telly are doing their jobs. Perhaps it is because we are accustomed to looking at it through that particular lens that we are maybe neglecting to consider the welfare of those participating. As a football fan, this is not the situation I want for the sport that I enjoy so much. I cannot think that fellow fans would want their enjoyment of football to be at such a significant cost to health. Things need to change, and it is high time that we saw that happening.

I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) mention women’s football. I had a fantastic constituency visit a couple of weeks ago to the wonderful Busby Girls AFC. It is a new and young club, but it already has hundreds of girls out there playing. Seeing that made me incredibly happy, and I say that as someone who is still smarting, four decades on, from being told at school that girls do not play football and having my football confiscated. I do not think I will ever let go of that issue. Girls do play football, and it absolutely is for girls. Hats off to all the folk at Busby for the brilliant work they are doing.

It is heartening that we can watch women’s professional football and enjoy it much more easily now, because it is there for us all to see. We do not have to hunt it out so much; there are so many more opportunities to see women at the top of their game playing football, and so many young girls are inspired by that. That is to be encouraged.

The challenge is that we cannot be entirely clear about the impact that heading the ball has on women and girls and exactly how it is different from men. I have looked at that question, and the answer is we do not know enough about it. We know it is not good, but we do not know the detail that underlies that, and that is unacceptable. I am aware of reports about Sheila Parker, who captained the England women’s team in the early 1970s. She was renowned, apparently, for her heading of the ball with frequency, gusto and accuracy. Her family believe that that has caused significant damage to her health. I send my best wishes to Sheila and her family, but it makes me think, and that kind of sad situation is a glaring example of the thing we cannot escape: we just do not know what the impact is on women of heading a football, and the more that we see women playing football and the more that women are playing football, the more pressing it is that we close the gap in research, and sharpish. Women and girl footballers deserve far better, so research and further discussion are necessary as a matter of urgency.

It is not only girls’ clubs that need us to focus on this issue. I also recently visited Giffnock Soccer Centre, which is doing fantastic work at all levels and bringing the whole community into the footballing world. I never like to miss an opportunity to speak about the Mighty Arthurlie in Barrhead. All these clubs and all the other great clubs in East Renfrewshire and all other constituencies also deserve our attention. We have heard clearly that this issue does not just affect those playing at professional level, and the hon. Member for Easington quoted stark figures on brain injury in amateur athletes. We need to focus on this issue at all levels of football, not just the highest levels. I say the highest levels, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber mentioned, I am a lifelong and very enthusiastic Dundee United fan. That can be character-building—that is probably the most constructive way for me to describe it.

[Chris Stephens]

Not as character-building as supporting Partick Thistle.

[Kirsten Oswald]

My hon. Friend points out that there are other teams that give us grey hair.

[Chris Stephens]

My hon. Friend seriously believes that supporting Dundee United is character-building, but it is not as character-building as being a Partick Thistle supporter. You need nerves of steel when you go to the theatre of dreams, Firhill stadium.

[Kirsten Oswald]

My hon. Friend is tempting me to giggle in an unparliamentary manner, which I will avoid doing. I will go back to the serious remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber in opening the debate. I thought that his speech was powerful and timely, and he made some important points. I was delighted that he spoke about Frank Kopel.

I said earlier in the debate that Frank Kopel was a hero of mine. He was a shining star in an era of shining stars at Dundee United. We were at the pinnacle of our success—I am sure those times will come again—and it was a joy for a football-mad wee girl to watch Frank and his fellow players at that time.

My right hon. Friend also spoke powerfully about the huge contribution of Frank’s wife, Amanda Kopel. She has made a huge difference to so many people. She is a giant, just like Frank, and they have both made their mark. We really owe them, and all of the families who have experienced the utter sorrow of what dementia and other neurodegenerative diseases do, to keep on at this subject.

We know that there is a higher incidence of these terrible diseases among people who play football. The figures noting which football positions people have played in show that, without doubt, there is a link. Despite the availability of very clear evidence over a number of years, it is a shame that more concrete action has not been taken. I would like to see concrete plans to minimise damage in the future. We cannot keep repeating the mistakes of the past.

It is time to consider reclassifying this as an industrial injury. It is absolutely clear what is happening. It is time to look at what all of the structures and guidance for men’s and women’s football say, and make sure that the appropriate levels of safety and support are built in. It is also time that we all change the way we think about football, so that it can remain a safe and enjoyable pastime well into the future.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, may I congratulate the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) on introducing the debate, all Members who have made contributions, and those who will reply from their Front Bench? I look forward very much to the Minister’s response. I do not mean to put any pressure or expectation on him, but we are very fortunate to have a Minister who always tries to give us a response that is constructive and helpful. We as MPs are trying to garner a response for our constituents. I know that he will listen to all of the points of view put forward and then respond in a way that helps us.

We have asked the Government to investigate the links between football and sport-related neurodegenerative disease. A 2019 public study revealed that football players were at increased risk of diagnosis of neurodegenerative disease. The risk increase was observed for Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, but not for all types of neurodegenerative disease, and for outfield players but not goalkeepers. As others have said, if three or four of the 11 who play in a team do not have it but the others do, there must be an issue. The call for this to be classified as an industrial injury is heavily backed in Northern Ireland as well, so it is important for me to be here to give that Northern Ireland perspective.

Last year, some of Northern Ireland’s most iconic footballers reunited to raise funds for Dementia NI at the Spirit of ’82 event in Belfast. It was held in memory of their good friend and teammate, the legendary Northern Ireland manager Billy Bingham, who had been living with dementia for 16 years before he passed away on 9 June 2022. I do not think there is much between my age and that of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, but I am old enough to remember Northern Ireland playing at the World cup in Spain in 1982. I had the opportunity to meet all the football players and Billy Bingham, who was an inspiration to me at that early age. He was an inspiration on the pitch as a footballer, and he then became an inspiration as a manager.

I was also in Mexico in 1986, which was before I got married—everything changes when we get married, and we are not able to get away the same as we used to—and on coming home I had the opportunity to get the autographs of the Northern Ireland team and Billy Bingham. A Brazilian football supporter and I swapped a Brazilian shirt and a Northern Ireland shirt, so I have in my office a shirt with the autographs of all the Northern Ireland team of 1986 plus Billy Bingham. I pass that shirt every day and remember very clearly that he was a player who inspired me and inspired us all, yet he passed away as a result of the game he played so well. It is important to be here today to speak on behalf of the Billy Binghams of this world and others who have suffered and passed away.

It is fantastic that high-profile footballers recognise the link. That is also true of retired managers such as Sir Alex Ferguson and Alex McLeish. They were great players who we all looked up to as young boys and young men. That emphasises the importance of investigating this link further and gathering the evidence.

A study has found that footballers are 50% more likely to develop dementia than the rest of the population—that is evidence, factually based and cannot be ignored—fuelling calls to restrict rules for heading a football. Classifying it as an industrial injury would mean that former footballers suffering with the disease would be able to claim certain benefits for industrial injuries that occurred in the workplace. Their employment and the source of their income is the sport that they play. I support those calls, given the evidence, which is becoming clearer. My belief has been reinforced by all Opposition and Government Members who have spoken today. They have been galvanised by what they have heard in their own constituencies and from their own personal experience. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) spoke of what Rangers football club is doing. It is really important to have that in place.

The other evidential base is from football in the States—or soccer, as they call it. I find it hard to get my head around the word “soccer”, because we call it football. In the US, they have imposed guidelines limiting players’ exposure to heading, despite controversy over whether dementia is caused by heading the ball. The fact is that, as has been said, they have introduced precautions. The hon. Members for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Glasgow South West referred to evidence from the universities. There is quite clearly an evidential base in the United States of America.

[Chris Stephens]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Shannon]

Absolutely.

[Chris Stephens]

I have always wanted to intervene on the hon. Gentleman. He has mentioned Billy Bingham and footballers in Northern Ireland. I am sure he will agree that it is important to note that the wages in Northern Ireland football are not at the elite level that we read about in all the sensational headlines in the newspapers. Does he therefore agree that access to the industrial injury benefit will help former footballers and their families?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The wage structure in Northern Ireland is nowhere near that level. There is some expectation of teams in the Irish league. There have been many buy-outs and clubs with lots of money-making financial investments, but let us be honest: in the years past many people probably played because they loved the sport. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

Will the Minister undertake discussions with our American counterparts and share information so as to ensure that we have the most accurate information available on which to base our response to tackling this issue?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

The hon. Gentleman is pre-empting later parts of my speech, but I think that it is important to highlight the concussion guidance. It is important that we give information to grassroots organisations that often will not have medical advisers on hand. Having that information available for grassroots volunteers is incredibly important and valuable, but that is the start of our work.

As I say, the guidelines are for the use of everyone involved in grassroots sports from school age upwards: participants, coaches, volunteers and parents, as well as those working in education settings and healthcare professions. The guidelines are especially helpful for grassroots players and being able to recognise and respond to concussion symptoms appropriately when no trained medical person is on hand; as we know, that is more likely to be the case than in a professional setting. Through the guidelines, we want to encourage more people to enjoy the benefits of being active and playing sport and we hope that they will prove to be a helpful tool in reducing the risks associated with concussion.

We have also established a research group on concussion in sport. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) and the hon. Member for Easington mentioned international experts, and I am pleased to say that they will be represented so that we draw on the latest and best information. The group is working across the sport and academic sectors to identify the key research questions on sports concussion that need to be addressed. The aim is for the research efforts to become more co-ordinated across sport so that the sector can pool its understanding and expertise. Just a few months ago, I went to see some of the incredible work that Loughborough University is doing in this area and some of the equipment it uses to test what would make sport safer for all.

Alongside that work, DCMS has established an advisory concussion in sport innovation and technology panel to identify tech innovations to help with concussion in sport issues on an ongoing basis. The Department for Health and Social Care is formulating the Government’s new strategy on acquired brain injury, including dementia, and DCMS is feeding into the process to ensure that those who play sport are properly represented. We remain committed to working with the sector to help to make sport safe and enjoyable for everyone, including through technological solutions for the prevention of concussion.

To turn to more specific points, as the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), mentioned, there have been developments within football, too. The Professional Footballers’ Association and Premier League recently established a new care fund to provide financial support to former players who have been affected by dementia and their families. The initial amount of £1 million will be made available immediately to provide discretionary financial support to former players and their families to help to improve the quality of their life. I have discussed the great work of the Professional Footballers’ Association on player welfare with its chief executive.

As it is the first of its kind for English football, I welcome the creation of the fund and hope it will provide help to the former players who need it most. We will continue to liaise with the football authorities in support of funding for cross-game initiatives. The Professional Footballers’ Association also has a dedicated brain health team that provides a range of support to former players and their families, including assistance with claiming state support and benefits.

During the debate, there has been discussion about whether dementia in footballers should be treated as an industrial disease. The Department for Work and Pensions provides specific support to people with industrial injuries through industrial injuries disablement benefit. As many will know, DWP is advised by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, an independent specific body, on changes to the list of occupational diseases for which IIDB can be paid. I know that many Members feel strongly that professional footballers’ access to such benefits should be explored, as was mentioned by many members, including the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens).

The hon. Member for Easington asked whether I could instruct the IIAC. If I had that power, I would love to use it, but I am pleased that the council is considering any connection between professional sportspeople and neurodegenerative diseases such as dementia. The council will publish its findings when its investigation is complete in due course, but given that the question has been raised a number of times, I will of course highlight the debate and the views raised in it to my colleagues in the DWP. It is important to remember that this is a complex area of work, and that going through the raft of published scientific literature that is available is significant work.

[Chris Stephens]

That is a very helpful response from the Minister and we would certainly welcome that. Could he perhaps facilitate some discussion with the IIAC and hon. Members who might be interested? I think a number of us would be interested to have such a discussion, if he could feed that back. We could then report back to our constituents. I welcome the comments that he has just made.

[Stuart Andrew]

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the IIAC is an independent body, but I would absolutely be more than happy to write to it or to my colleagues in DWP to say that colleagues in this House would welcome the opportunity to engage with the council.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2023 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for Midlothian, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

5. Whether the Committee has had recent discussions with the Electoral Commission on the transparency of political donations from overseas.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian)]

The Committee has not had a recent discussion with the commission on that issue. The commission publishes information about donations to ensure transparency, and it has powers to sanction political parties that accept impermissible foreign donations. It has highlighted that the political finance system is vulnerable to unlawful influence from donations overseas and in the UK, and it has recommended that parties should be required to know not just who a donor is but where the money for the donation is coming from. It has also recommended that parties have policies in place to manage the risk of receiving money from unlawful sources. The commission has said that parties should not be permitted to accept donations from companies that exceed their profits made in the UK.

[Chris Stephens]

The executive director of Spotlight on Corruption, Susan Hawley, says that the Tory UK Government’s “abject failure” to take decisive action on overseas donations is concerning our allies. She also says that elections are at risk of interference from Russia and other hostile states after the Government opposed the move to require political parties to verify and disclose the source of political donations. What steps is the commission taking to prevent overseas donations from hostile states that undermine electoral law? Has the commission asked the security services to undertake a review of political finance?

[Owen Thompson]

Speaking as a representative of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, it would be a matter for the security services to make a full assessment of whether unlawful foreign money has been used to campaign in UK elections. However, political parties must report when they are given an unlawful donation and return it to the donor. In addition, the commission carries out checks on permissibility on a sample of donations and has the power to sanction political parties that accept impermissible foreign donations. The commission has said that it takes all possible steps within the current regulatory framework to prevent unlawful foreign money from entering UK politics, and it publishes information about donations to ensure transparency. It has the powers to sanction, but it cannot take enforcement actions against organisations based outside the UK. The commission will continue to recommend changes to ensure that voters can have greater confidence in political finance in the UK.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I remind Ministers that they should be speaking to me, not to the Back Benches.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

T5. I welcome the Scottish Government’s recent announcement that workers’ rights will be a key element of a written constitution when Scotland becomes an independent nation. That is in stark contrast to this place, where this Government have legislated for only seven of the 53 recommendations of the Taylor review. When will they legislate for the other 46?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We are taking forward a number of reforms, as the hon. Member is aware. There is a private Member’s Bill, the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Bill, which includes a day-one right to request flexible working, as well as the right to request predictable terms and conditions, which is one of the recommendations of the Taylor review. I think he should welcome those kinds of measures.